On 04/25/2013 12:57 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:

On 25 Apr 2013 17:52, "Zvi Gilboa" <zg7s@eservices.virginia.edu> wrote:
>
> On 04/25/2013 08:51 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 07:44:39AM -0400, LM wrote:
>>>
>>> incompatible licenses. The openssl library can't be used with a GNU
>>> program unless there's a waiver for it because one of the clauses in the
>>> openssl license goes against the GNU license principles. The gnutls
>>
>> Not _used_ but _distributed_. The GPL does not restrict use
>> whatsoever (and takes the position that it legally can't do so) so
>> it's fine to use OpenSSL with GPL programs as long as you don't
>> distribute the resulting binary. This is of course a problem for
>> package maintainers/distributions, and distributing both openssl and
>> the GNU program and a script to link them together might even be seen
>> as an infringing activity.
>
>
> What about explicitly loading the library at run-time using uselib(2) in a plug-in like fashion? Is that also considered problematic from a GNU perspective?

There is some disagreement about this and it depends what you distribute. See here http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/548216/731f7ad0abe52f40/

Justin

Thank you for pointing to this excellent article. I initially considered the plug-in-like case easier to assess -- specifically since the loaded library will never be listed as one of the loading object's dependencies -- yet with notions such as interdependency and "collectivity," one can never be on safe ground when loading a GPL'ed library from within a differently-licensed program, open-source or not. Ironically, much of the current thread is about the need to create alternatives to commonly-used GPL'ed libraries, which in itself reminds of past (and present) efforts to create open source alternatives to proprietary libraries and software products.

Zvi